民法 第126條의 正當한 理由의 存在에 대한 判例理論에 관한 小考 (A Study on the Theory of Judicial Precedents about Existence of Justifiable Reason of the Article 126 in Civil Act)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 성균관대학교 법학연구원
· 수록지 정보 : 성균관법학 / 28권 / 1호 / 201 ~ 246페이지
· 저자명 : 최문기

초록

우리 민법상의 표현대리가 추구하는 궁극의 목적은 본인의 이익과 상대방의 이익의 조화를 꾀하는 것이다. 그런데 통설 · 판례는 거래의 안전 보호의 측면에 치중한 결과 표현대리의 요건을 확장시켜서 무권대리행위에 대하여 본인에게 무거운 이행책임을 부담케 하고 있다. 그러나 통설 ․ 판례와 같이 어느 한쪽으로만 편중된 해석은 타당하지 않다고 생각된다. 따라서 표현대리의 성립 여부를 판단함에 있어서 거래의 안전을 위해 희생되는 본인의 귀책근거를 명확히 하지 않으면 안 된다. 표현대리의 이론적 근거인 권리외관이론은 거래의 안전 보호의 요청에만 관심을 기울여 왔을 뿐 선의의 제3자를 보호함으로써 불이익을 입는 진정한 권리자의 보호에 관해서는 무관심한 태도를 보여왔다. 그러므로 본인책임의 인정에 있어서 본인측에 무권대리행위의 효과를 귀속시키는 것을 정당화할 수 있는 귀책요소 내지 귀책성(귀책사유)을 요구하면서 일정한 사정이 있는 경우에는 상대방에게도 조사 ․ 확인의무라는 귀책요소를 요구함으로써, 즉 정당한 이유를 요구함으로써 표현대리 제도의 궁극적 목적인 정적 이익과 동적 이익이 조화를 이룰 수 있을 것이라고 생각된다.

영어초록

On existence of justifiable reason the great part of jurists and judicial precedents believe the agent had the right of agency by the other party even on overstepping in question, and understand that the belief is identical with no-fault, or liability without fault. And existence of justifiable reason is judged on the assumption of objective conditions seen from the other party in the transaction.
Therefore, when existence of justifiable reason is judged from subjective observations as in the cases of the great part of jurists and judicial precedents, conditions of the principal that may not be judged subjectively including, for instance, the apparent representation bestowed of the right of agency forged or stole the principal’s seal or registration documents for embezzlement are difficult to consider in the judgment of justifiable reason. Although on an apparent agent is essentially the agent without authority, the principal has to have the effects identical from agency with authority. Therefore, under apparent representation the principal cannot reject the performance requiring of the other party and should be burdened with responsibility of performance. Nevertheless, the great part of jurists and judicial precedents have discussed apparent representation just as a system for protecting the other party, not focusing on the protection of the principal’s profit.
Such tendency has been considerably criticized, and recently some jurists seek to the balance between dynamic and static profit by limiting the scope of recognition of the protection of the other party by self-responsibility or self-responsibility factors of the principal. As above-mentioned, when existence of justifiable reason is understood as liability without fault of the other party, it may be impossible to consider the conditions of the principal, or self-responsibility factors in the decision of existence of justifiable reason.
However, when existence of justifiable reason and the liability without fault of the other party are regarded as separate requirements for each other, they can be considered in the decision of existence of justifiable reason. In this context, the intervention of the static profit of the principal and the dynamic profit of the other party can be obtained from existence of justifiable reason with the function of general provisions.

참고자료

· 없음